Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers A Modified Settlement
inepom01 writes: "Just read a story here about Microsoft offering a different settlement proposal- this one would have two other companies join in on the foundation MS is establishing- Connectix and Key Curriculum Press. Since Connectix makes software that lets Windows programs work on Macs, seems like same old Microsoft tricks." gnovos points to another story at MSNBC on the shifting terms of this proposal.
Somebody please explain to me how anything MS offers will punish it for overcharging consumers for Windows.
1. A $1billion pay out in software, hardware, and support is nothing, especially extended over a few years. MS grosses $1billion a *month* on its products. So they would pay fines equivalent to one month of income at most.
2. Making the schools choose their tech needs is cool, but if MS charges less directly than on the open market (see article quote from MS Spokeman) then why would schools select anything else?
3. What refurb'ed computers will be used? And wouldn't that mean running older versions of Windows? I'm guessing most schools aren't likely to buy older Macs.
4. What made Steve Jobs speak out so loudly about this? He's been very quiet on bashing MS, even after MS got rid of their non-voting investment some time back. He sent Avie to testify about MS wanting to "knife the baby" of QuickTime. Does he really feel secure to bash MS now, or is it that Apple really, really threatened by cheap MS software being given to schools? I'm guessing the latter since mercurial Steve was relatively restrained in his response and the legal brief Apple provided.
5. What happens when the support money (a paltry amount IMHO) runs out? Do the schools get stuck paying for support on old equipment running old software that isn't supported by their makers anymore?
I don't have a great solution. I'd prefer to see the schools be given a lump sum of money to invest in whatever they want (like textbooks or infrastructure improvements) rather than allow MS to get even further entrenched in one market they don't completely push around today.
I know you were being funny, but remember a while back when ,mayor Marion Barry was caught on video tape buying/using crack, convicted, served his sentence, and then got re-elected mayor of DC? He didn't exactly sentence himself back to being mayor, but you would have thought the legal system might have prevented him from obtaining a position in which he previously abused the power....
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
I'm Canadian as well...
You're right, there's no real reason the money should be given to schools and not someone else - though I think it would be hard to divvy up exactly who's been damaged. Those with specific grievances should be filing suit themselves.
Schools seems like a good plan because:
A: schools need money
B: MS will agree to a larger dollar amount if it's going to schools (as it gives them PR instead of highlighting criminality). While this makes the settlement less punitive, money for schools is undeniably a good thing. And it's certainly a better plan than software donation.
That said, I think whatever number comes up should be large enough to have punitive effect - and the real meat of the settlement should be efforts to prevent abusive behavior on the part of MS in the future.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The Redhat idea was too fitting to be accepted by the Gubment. Poetic Justice is unfortunately not the US DoJ weapon of choice.
Damn shame.
I think that the counter recommended proposal for a completely independent trust set up with real dollars is a nice solution that would allow for the purchase of machines running Redhat or other distributions in addition to Apples, and M$ Machines. The key, I think, is that M$ must actually hand over real dollars from the coffer, not just pseudo bucks where each CD is theoretically $300, even though we all know they aren't worth much more than a dime.
Also, the solution must address the monopoly. If it does not, the states can simply sue again next year. The criminal concept of double jeopardy does not apply here. If at any point in the future M$ is again considered a monopoly, they will again be in violation of anti-trust laws and can be punished accordingly. If the so called solution increases the monopoly (as the first-hit-free-save-the-children scenario clearly would) or even maintains the monopoly, it will not prevent further action by the states, or class action suits on behalf of the users.
-Rothfuss
(thanks go to Bill C. from the lugwash list)
2 00 11207001012102
Send this to Judge Motz - Wired reports that he's only got 200 complaint letters so far.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz
Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415
101 West Lombard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft
Corporation is not in the best interests of the American people. It
does not protect against future abuses and in fact encourages the
spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training a vast army of
young people to use their operating system and attendant application
programs to the exclusion of very viable software alternatives.
America is based on freedom of choice; but students in Americas'
public schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill
for the coming generation of employees, on the products provided to
them. Today, the Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to broaden the
scope of that choice and thus empower generations yet unborn. It also
has the opportunity to cave in to Bill Gates and thus must choose
between greatness and ignominy.
The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students (and
their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their children
will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide intellectual
marketplace against American children whose access to hardware was
hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the practice of using
Microsoft products all but exclusively in the public schools. The
Australian experience could have been dramatically more productive
had they used Linux as the operating system on all their computers
but it was a good initial step. The present savings represent its use
in their servers only.
http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=
I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in hardware
donations only. It has been brought to my attention that Red Hat
Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) has offered
to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer.
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point in
time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as the
Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools would
eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of funds
to re-license / upgrade their software.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from expressing
generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, only
furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should not
be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed illegal
practices in the establishment of their dominance in the software
market.
Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their very
public words.
Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
- passion
I'm sick of the stuff I hear about this settlement. I've come to the conclusion that neither the civil nor federal cases are going to really do anyhting to curtail MS in any way. I say ditch any settlements and go the long road in the court case.
The best thing to come out of the DOJ case thus far is a showing to the general public of MS's "evil" business practices which has really fueled the demonizing of Microsoft. It was the demonizing of IBM in their 13 year anti-trust case that led to the growth of IBM and Microsoft as people thwarted IBM's "control".
The IBM anti-trust case really didn't do anything either, but indirectly it was very effective.
Run the cases all the way through -- I don't care how long it takes. As long as MS continues to get demonized it will suffer the same fate as IBM which seems to be the only effective solution when tecnology is involved because the lawers and judges are so damned technically illiterate.
To quote Steve Wozniak:
"Part of Gates' personality is to never, ever give up an inch of ground. But I think what they're scared of now is that they've now been categorized as evil. Everybody knew that in the industry anyway. Where it's going to hurt them is recruiting. The key to all these companies is what kind of talent they can recruit for the next generation of products. Do you really want to go work for the Evil Empire?"
That's what made apple and MS. No one wanted to work for nor buy IBM any more. OS/2 was a far superior product for a much more reliable company then MS with Windows, but companies did not want any more of IBM's control because IBM marketed it as a "whole solution" integrated with thier mainframes much like MS now markets WIndows as a "whole" solution integrated with their servers, office, ie, and soon web services.
Good Night.